Consulting young people on research: an example from a review of school effects on health

Farah Jamal and Angela Harden

Background

• Patient and public involvement in research– political and ethical imperatives– pursuit of ‘better’ research– patient and public demand

• New and not so new concept

• Many examples from health research

• Few involve young people or systematic reviews

Oliver et al. (2008) A multidimensional conceptual framework for analysing public involvement in health services research. Health Expectations, Mar2008, Vol. 11 Issue 1, p72-84.

Collaborative project led by:

•University of Oxford•IHHD UEL

Other collaborators

•LSHTM•University of Liverpool•Cardiff University•Institute of Education•University of Bristol

Review Questions1. What theories are used to explain school-level influences on health?

2. What are the effects of school environment interventions on student health?

3. How feasible and acceptable are school environment interventions?

4. What are the effects on health of school-level factors? (e.g. school organisation, discipline)

5. Through what processes might these school-level influences occur?

Figure 1: Stages and process for evidence mapping and syntheses on the effects of schools and school-environment interventions on health

Overall aim: To synthesise the evidence base relating to the health effects of SE

interventions and of school-level influences

RQ1 RQ2 RQ3 RQ4

Searching, apply initial inclusion

criteria

Descriptive map of all available relevant

research

Synthesis1 : Summary of

theories

Consultation with stakeholders to narrow focus for in-depth appraisal and

synthesis

Synthesis 1: Effects of

school environment interventions

Synthesis 2: Which school-level factors

influence health?

Synthesis 3 and 5: Feasibility,

acceptability, contextual factors

Overall conclusions and recommendations (Effects and costs of interventions

Revised theories Implementation guide

New interventions to test)

Stage 1

Stage 2

RQ5

Stage 3

ALPHA group (Advice Leading to Public Health Advancement).

Young people aged 14 - 19 years from across South Wales

Young people have undergone training

Sessions are supported by qualified youth workers.

Who did we consult?

Face-to-face discussions

Group exercise

Online consultationsCONSULTATION

SYSTEMATICREVIEW

OUTCOME

Project inception Mapping stage

Prioritising health topics /

Focusing on the review

 

Understanding the problem /Developing

research aim

How did we consult?

Consultation at project inception

• What does health and well-being mean to you?

• How do schools affect your health and well being?

• What can schools do to improve your health and well being?

Consultation at project inception

• What does health and well-being mean to you?

• How do schools affect your health and well being?

• What can schools do to improve your health and well being?

Consultation at mapping

• Consensus development process

• List of topics/outcomes identified during mapping discussed

• Young people added additional items: depression, appearance, ‘over-achieving’, relationships

• Relationships were identified as the most important (with teachers particularly)

• Anxiety and general mental-health was ranked second and also considered to be very important to the group.

Impact on review process and findings

• Fed into decision to focus on the relationship between a school’s ‘core business’ and health.

• Provided a broader context within which to interpret the review findings.

• Able to evaluate the research literature against priorities of young people.

Reflections

• Face to face consultation worked best, on-line phase underdeveloped

• Established group with research knowledge and youth worker support has many advantages

• BUT – may have missed local East London perspectives

• Large, complex review – more limited impact of young people’s consultations?

Thank you!

The full report can be found at http://www.journalslibrary.nihr.ac.uk/phr/volume-1/issue-1

The views and opinions expressed therein are those of the authors and do not necessarily reflect those of the NIHR

PHR programme or the Department of Health.